A discussion on the morality of polygamy

[Prakk]

"Well, I don't believe your interpretation of it."

What a liar. I'm not interpretting it, I'm reading it, it takes disbelief or extremely twisted interpretation to get anything else out of what Paul said.

"Uh-huh. I am practically dogmatic in my refusal to mistake the Apostles for God."

Since everything in scripture is written by a man, I suppose you don't even know God.

"People are people, and people seeking God are people seeking God."

The LDS worship a different God.

Hugh McBryde

 

[seebs]

Reading Paul without interpretation is dangerous.

[bible]2 Peter 3:15-16[/bible]

 

[MuAndNu]

You are unlearned.

You know, I was right with you when you said the Bible doesn't forbid polygamy. But let me make it clear to all that I do not share your attitude!

 

[Prakk]

"But let me make it clear to all that I do not share your attitude!"

But I thought you LIKED the rough stuff Mu.

Hugh McBryde

 

[seebs]

You are unlearned.

This may be. I have a lot of learning left to do, certainly.

 

[Prakk]

"This may be. I have a lot of learning left to do, certainly."

I won't get trapped in the red herring discussion of whether or not Paul saw women as subordinate to men. Any thorough or honest reading of Paul requires gymnastics beyond olympic quality, to reach a conclusion apart from the obvious one. The Bible is not a "living document" in the same way that revisionists view the US Constitution. Paul didn't put meanings into his letters that were to be "discovered" later by progressive scholars.

Hugh McBryde

 

[seebs]

The questions of what Paul meant, and whether Paul was always right, are substantial ones. I do not feel I am ready to claim any certain knowledge on either of these issues. It is sufficient for me to note that I personally suspect Paul was trying to explain things to people within the framework they understood. After all, Paul's clear endorsements of slavery seem, to me, to have been understood within a cultural context, not to be an indication that God sincerely thinks we can morally "own" other people.

 

[Aimee30]

Just a question--what if the polygamy was done in ignorance?
Say if you had something like amnesia and you would forget that you were already married and marry someone else. You live with the spouse a few years and suddenly you remeber who you were and that you were already married. Would you feel morally obligated to be the spouse of both? Or would you divorce one just because you don't want to be polygamous? What if you love both spouses and can't decide?

Also, what if it was something your parents made you do without your consent and woke up to one day having like 50 spouses or something? What would be your moral obligation? Divorce all or divorce everyone but your favorite? Honor the marriage sbecause your parents want you to? Then again what if all the spouses love you and all want to stay with you despite this? What would you do?

I don't really know how to answer my situations mentioned above. I know that robably some would have no problem with divorces because they consider these things wrong--but then again there is a passage that states that the Lord hates divorce. And it is true some polygamy took place in the Bible. I just wonder if there is any really good argument to specify polygamy is totally immoral and totally wrong.
I wouldn't really want the kids of nay such unions to be exposed to this highly however--as I wouldn't want them to think it is the way they have to be or that is the totally acceptable thing to do. I just don't know that polygamy is immoral--I guess its more like the way it might be used is immoral like as in greed or selfish behavior.

 

[ACougar]

It's one of those areas where one groups understanding of right and wrong are forced on the rest of society. Poligamy is already a common practice, the only thing that doesn't happen is the creation of official legal status for more than two individuals. Our culture is living in denial, someday soon perhaps everyone will be able to live and let live.

In examing the issue of marriage, it seems people are interested in maintaining our cultural definition of marriage, which excludes consideration for other cultural marriage practices. These include polygamous marriages, which are accepted throughout the world and in past cultures. In fact, it is even practiced by many Jewish religious figures in the Old Testament. I do not understand why polygamy, therefore, should be against the law in a supposedly secular nation, when in fact, I can't seem to find anything objectionable about it that doesn't involve biblical interpretations.

With the increasing acceptance of non-traditional western marriages, I do think polygamy will be a more debated subject in the future. Especially when these marriages involve bisexual partners, rather than all heterosexual ones.

In evaluating this, I see emotional benefits and hardships for the partners involved, both being about equal. For children, I see an advantage in having more of chance of getting attention and possibly a stay-at-home parent. The only downside I can see is a vague assertion that it will somehow 'harm' the child in being raised. However, single parent households prove that having one male and one female parent is not necessary for development. Economically, it is obviously advantageous.

So, can someone tell me why this issue is a big deal at all? Outside of violating the status quo, of course.

 

[Prakk]

The questions of what Paul meant, and whether Paul was always right, are substantial ones.

You can count me among those who see Paul as saying what he meant, meaning what he said, and not trying to bury a secret contradictory meaning underneath a blatant and obvious one. God had his writings included in scripture because they are scripture and inspired by God. Nothing Paul writes in the New Testament represents doctrinal error.

Hugh McBryde